Another idiot attached to a gun

[CZ97B]

...So if that suspicious person attacks you, what would you do? Please keep in mind this was after you called 911. Do you allow the suspicious person to "win" the fight? ...

If he attacks, then I would have reacted the same way as the watch leader did, yes. But that's not my point. I simply would not have confronted the kid, if that's what happened. Although we don't know what happened. We only know what the kid's family is alleging through their lawyer. And I would have kept my distance as well. We don't have many facts. The news articles have been sparse and unreliable. But we know the watch leader failed to keep a safe distance from the kid. And confronting someone one-on-one is a bad bet, assuming that's what happened. It's always better to have back up with you first. We just don't know what happened yet. The local police are probably scratching their heads as well, and then the D/A's office will be scratching their own.

...
...Zimmerman had every right to get out and question this kid. He's just asking questions. I have the right to ask you what you are doing on my street and you have the right to ask me the same question...its what happens next that matters...

Based on hindsight, the confrontation was not wise. Sure the watch leader "had every right" but it turned out not to be a good idea because now he will be paying for at least one trial if not two. And a kid is dead, that is really unfortunate too.

That's my own take on this. And as you and I have debated, I am sure a jury will be similarly debating as well, depending on the facts presented at trial, whether a civil trial or a criminal trial, or both.

Then ultimately there will be a verdict, or a hung jury.

[CZ97B]

This is third hand, so take it for what it's worth. According to one of the responding officers, Zimmerman did not confront Martin, did not attempt to stop him in any way. He followed Martin. Martin stopped and asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said "no". Martin said "well, you do now", and started the fight.

Case law supports that Zimmerman could make a citizens' arrest for a felony, if he saw it happen, but not a misdemeanor. Of course, people who arrest someone for a misdemeanor hardly ever get in any trouble for it. If he saw Martin breaking into a home, he would be in his right; if he saw the kid cut through a yard, he wouldn't.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the situation, because there really isn't anything out there showing that Zimmerman confronted him, but I have to ask- why would you assume that someone who just wants to walk down the street without being confronted must be doing something wrong? I just don't feel like getting into it with some busybody nosy neighbor.

Thanks for the insights Wayne.

If it comes out in the investigation that the watch leader said nothing at all, and the kid did the confronting, then it should be ruled to be a justifiable homicide in self defense. But even if so, the family has lawyered up, and looks to be posturing in the news media to launch a civil trial. So maybe the watch leader should have stayed further back? But hindsight is of course 20-20.

You are right, the news did not provide much info, and their slant was pro-kid and anti-watch-leader.

[dieselpower]

This is third hand, so take it for what it's worth. According to one of the responding officers, Zimmerman did not confront Martin, did not attempt to stop him in any way. He followed Martin. Martin stopped and asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said "no". Martin said "well, you do now", and started the fight.



Case law supports that Zimmerman could make a citizens' arrest for a felony, if he saw it happen, but not a misdemeanor. Of course, people who arrest someone for a misdemeanor hardly ever get in any trouble for it. If he saw Martin breaking into a home, he would be in his right; if he saw the kid cut through a yard, he wouldn't.



This doesn't really have anything to do with the situation, because there really isn't anything out there showing that Zimmerman confronted him, but I have to ask- why would you assume that someone who just wants to walk down the street without being confronted must be doing something wrong? I just don't feel like getting into it with some busybody nosy neighbor.

Ok so in FL law you can not Citizen arrest for a misdemeanor. In CA you can. You can only arrest for misdemeanors committed that you witnessed, felonies you need reasonable proof the person did it..whether or not they actually did. I hear a gun shot in the next room..I go there see a person with a gun and a dead body. I can arrest the person with the gun. Even if it turns out they didn't do it or even if they did it but never get charged with the crime I arrested them for.

I have to disagree with you on that last point. I think you are missing my point. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was right or wrong to stop him... if he confronted or not...if he was told to stay in the car or not...the only thing that matters is what he thought was happening when he pulled his firearm and shot. If he was in fear of his life, the shooting was justified. The only time a person can not claim self-defense is when they are committing a crime....and even then some crimes do in fact allow the criminal to defend themselves from a life threatening attack.